Domestic violence package: A great start, but it will only get us so far

One-off funding to prevent family violence is a positive first step, but until Australia's legacy of ad hoc and inadequate funding is comprehensively addressed, women and children will remain in danger, write Fiona McCormack and Prue Cameron.

As the first major funding and policy announcement of the Turnbull Government, this package signals that prevention of violence against women is a top priority. It is recognition that strong words and advertising campaigns will not stop the violence, nor will they satisfy the community's growing expectation of real action to address this pervasive social problem. It indicates that this Government is beginning to grasp the breadth, depth and complexity of the problem.

The package is significant. It demonstrates an understanding of the urgent need for investment for frontline response services for women and children experiencing family violence, for perpetrator programs as well as primary prevention. It is encouraging that the funding is a first instalment, highlighting the Government's appreciation of the extent of the problem and resources required to address it.

For these reasons, those of us working in the specialist family violence sector have cause to feel some degree of optimism.

That said, this funding, welcome as it is, will not come close to filling the significant budgetary shortfall across the family violence system which has left specialist women and children's services, legal services and the court system struggling to meet the demand which is growing exponentially.

It is instructive to look to the history of funding for family or domestic violence services to understand how the system has been so neglected and how it continues to be woefully under-resourced.

Until relatively recently, intimate partner violence was viewed as a private matter, an issue only for the individuals concerned, a source of shame and judgment. In the seventies, women's refuges were established to house women and children fleeing violent men, but this was still seen as a temporary problem for individual women. That feminists were the driving force behind the women's refuge movement may have further served to marginalise the issue of family violence in the eyes of community and policy-makers.

Nonetheless, the pattern was laid in those early years, and governments have continued to fund family violence services as though the issue is ad hoc, temporary and incidental rather than the complex and entrenched social problem that it is.

The genesis of the family violence service response in refuges has had a lasting impact on the funding model. Specialist services for women and children experiencing family violence continue to be funded through homelessness programs. This focus on preventing family violence-related homelessness means that services are only funded for this purpose. The breadth of support and responses provided by specialist family violence services - including working with women before they reach crisis points, supporting women to stay in their homes, providing support and advice for women to navigate the complex legal, housing and income support systems and advocating for system reform - are not measured and therefore not properly funded.

We are calling on the Federal Government to commit with states and territories to a National Partnership Agreement for Prevention of Violence Against Women.

Over the years a pattern has emerged of governments funding one-off competitive grants to services, often for short term projects that have no on-going funding. Specialist services spend significant time and limited staff resources writing funding applications and reporting on grant acquittal at the cost of providing frontline services to women and children in need.

Peak bodies, such as ours (Domestic Violence Victoria), have been forced to spend time fighting against funding cuts to family violence services rather than supporting them to develop innovative practice initiatives to strengthen the work they are doing.

This year alone we have had to fend off Federal Government cuts to the homelessness funding program and community legal services that have threatened their viability. While these cuts were averted this year, the fight will begin again when the short-term arrangements end next year.

Until this legacy of ad hoc, insecure and inadequate funding is comprehensively addressed, women and children will continue to be terrified, abused and murdered. That is why we are calling on the Federal Government to commit with states and territories to a National Partnership Agreement for Prevention of Violence Against Women.

This will ensure there is a specific, dedicated and secure budget with articulated goals and commensurate funding commitment. It will mean that prevention of violence against women remains on the political agenda, making governments now and into the future accountable for their actions in this area through a transparent budget item and measurable outcomes.

Comments (113)

Comments for this story are closed.

Gudpert:

25 Sep 2015 8:19:00am

The crux of all service delivery problems, secure funding for their programs. There are 1000's of worthy service delivery platforms all competing for funding. How do you allocate funding fairly between each? Can you rate one cause higher than the other? While unfortunate, I think at some level this needs to be done.

I believe there should be secure funding to a degree, but there should not be an open cheque book. Departments and service delivery programs of all stripes should still be required to justify funding on a regular basis. This ensures that no service becomes bloated and resources are allocated to services that are most in need.

Bev:

Desert Woman:

25 Sep 2015 9:05:56am

Gudpert and Bev, if our whole approach to govt was not so fragmented and irrational, there would be no individual programs and small services springing up to fill the cracks. It could all be fixed if we had a national strategic plan to deal with this problem.

Call in all the service providers, some of the victims, the academics etc, put them in a room for a couple of days and nights to do some intensive work on the whole problem including prevention.

By the whole problem, I mean the point at which our historically sexist culture meets our increasingly violent society. There are people out there who can throw light on these problems and this light can guide plans for a resolution. As much as I applaud yesterday's much needed technological fix, it does nothing to address the underlying causes. But the time is right to go deeper and develop a comprehensive and future oriented approach.

Dove:

Desert Woman:

25 Sep 2015 11:38:28am

Dove, have you got a few hours and a nice red? Some dots:

Underlying both sexism and violence is inequality, obvious from our earliest days, black/white, convict/jailer, male/female inherited from UK and for women - whore/God's police. The situation improved after WWII until the late 1970s when financial inequality started to rapidly increase.

Any unequal situation breeds multiple problems and exacerbates existing differences. Combine it with an increasing lack of meaning in life which shows up in all sorts of ways of living for the moment and ignoring the consequences, e.g. chasing novelty, celebrity worship, drug use etc, and violence. Lack of meaning derives from loss of meaningful connection with others, boring work or no work at all. Females are catching up in the superficialities stakes as well.

Early reports of life in OZ show a conundrum about male/female relationships because men were often absent and women were primary decision makers: young females often ran families, farms etc. They seemed powerful and often were but most of what they touched became classified as 'women's work'. There has been a long history of writing off, devaluing their contribution.

The Concerned Citizen:

25 Sep 2015 10:56:37am

You said it perfectly Desert Woman- the problem is many Australians are wrapped in a culture that practically glorifies and nurtures throwing tantrums, brawling and aggression (our most celebrated sports being an example). Children or adults watching these behaviours would need some substantial attempts by parents to contextualize them to prevent them being generalized to other situations.

Adding to that (but by no means solely responsible) is the fact that we glorify alcohol consumption and shame rejection of abstaining from either alcohol or aggression. There is clearly pressure on parts of society to emulate these behaviours to prove one's "manhood"

Desert Woman:

leftrightout:

25 Sep 2015 12:41:36pm

"As much as I applaud yesterday's much needed technological fix, it does nothing to address the underlying causes."

And this is the problem with this article. They are seeking funding models for addressing the result rather than programs to change cultural attitude which in many cases is the cause. And by cultural attitude I mean more than just gender issues. Societal attitude to violence in general is a problem, as is the way we raise children who are nurtured to a state of not fully appreciating cause & effect or personal responsibility. We are 'too busy' and 'too independent' to raise children as part of a larger family or community resulting in a distance from social understanding and empathy.

Citizenjane:

25 Sep 2015 2:36:54pm

DW. I agree that the addressing of underlying issues is what's required if we genuinely want to better things.

The PM needs to consider the benefits of a long term solution that would see an improved public education system to create a bright and enthusiastic workforce. Not by importing talent, but focusing on the people we have already have. We need to develop industries that set ourselves aside from an Asian skill set that we simply can't compete with. We need to create a nation of secure, decently paid positions that are offered to everyone not just the few around the top. We need to ensure that our basic cost of living never exceeds the benefits of low wages

The current building industry is a good case study. A few years back that industry begun to offer its workers a free counseling service. The need arose from the number of reported cases where workers were incurring significant problems associated with the stress of not having a permanent job. The casualisation of this sector lead to financial stress that bought mental health disorders, crime and domestic violence with it

Consider this. Casualisation is a common reality now days. Very few permanent full time jobs are offered. Employers no longer want the responsibility that comes with it. The very real impact of this is a pandemic instability for all those who don't know if they have an income in the next week

Desert Woman:

25 Sep 2015 3:54:04pm

Excellent comment Citizen Jane, DV is but a symptom of the many problems we have accrued, and are still accruing because the people have been lost sight of in the great rush to short term wealth and self aggrandizement. Honestly, what did we think would happen when we started treating people like redundant parts?

Darren:

25 Sep 2015 9:11:59am

Scott Morrison has declared there is no revenue problem and said nothing when George Brandis recently raised the cost of getting a divorce. Increasing the cost of a divorce is a slap in the face to women with violent husbands and discourages them from removing themselves and their children to a safer enviroment. Malcom Turnbull also said nothing about the increase in divorce costs but is now somehow a champion of DV reform. Currently the Turnbull government policy is to support the perpetrators of DV by trapping their victims in a cycle of violence they cannot raise the money to remove themselves from and it staggers me in a Abbott kind of way that I am the only one pointing this out. If there is no revenue problem then why make it difficult for victims of DV as a matter of policy?

Curious party:

25 Sep 2015 11:53:16am

Freddie:

That $300 might not sound like a lot, but consider the family that is on Centrelink benefits/working poor (as many/most abused partners become when they leave the abusive relationship) - $300 is a lot of money for them and just one more financial hurdle that they have to leap.

It would be fairer if they increased the cost to $500 and means-tested the cost - if I'm getting divorced as a middle-class person and dividing assetts in the hundreds of thousands, an extra few hundred dollars isn't going to hurt me too badly. But it will hurt those who are already struggling the most.

Ted:

Heather:

25 Sep 2015 10:01:38am

Quite so Bev. You will find staffing costs gobble up around half the funding with CEO's on $500,000 salaries. Some good but some have to work with hands tied behind their backs. While the Law still protects offenders with lenient sentences.

Bev:

25 Sep 2015 3:10:53pm

Quite so. White Ribbon gets some money from government but depends on donations for the rest. Of a $2 million budget. $1.2 when on salaries for board members. $600,000 on travel, accommodation and expenses. Further money went on fund raising leaving little in the coffers. A great deal of the real work by this and other organizations is by volunteers who get no money.

WA Ideas:

25 Sep 2015 11:55:55am

Funding is better directed towards crisis care so that people who are victims of domestic violence actually have somewhere that they can go to and be safe while they find a new place to live. Many victims of domestic violence feel trapped between a rock and a hard place as often they have children and they have to make a difficult choice between staying and suffering further from violence, or leaving and potentially living on the street with their kids until they can find alternative housing.

Fortunately, when it comes to wait lists for public housing, victims of domestic violence who have fled the situation with their children get bumped up the queue. We just need to concentrate on where they can go between leaving the violent person and getting public housing.

Also, funding for legal aid services to assist victims of domestic violence to obtain a VRO (or AVO on the east coast) to have some protection and if necessary to run the trial on behalf of the victim if the VRO is challenged by the offender so that the VRO can be made final.

Curious party:

25 Sep 2015 11:54:34am

I've noticed that the hotline they often refer to is the national domestic and family violence hotline, rather than the violence against women hotline (as it used to be called). That is a good start is it not?

Darren:

25 Sep 2015 4:01:52pm

"There are no services for men."

Maybe because a significant portion of the community think services are for leaners. Now the "age of entitlement is over" cuts to services is the best medicine for the leaners that use these services." The country can't afford the people that occupy it" is the cry from those least affected by the cuts to social services as the Turnbull government continue witth the Abbott?Hockey method of improving the government bottom line by picking on those who can least afford it and in no position to fight back.

lone ranger:

25 Sep 2015 11:59:38am

Good on you "awake" yhere seems to be a deliberate gender specific slant in this debate in that violence only occurs by men against women when we all know that is not true. Begs the question: Violence against men is ok then?

lilly:

25 Sep 2015 2:57:02pm

The media's standpoint would seem to dictate that men suffer less from violence and other hardships than women and children. When ever you hear about a disaster on the news, its always the women and children that get a specific mention. When the Senate investigated the Nauru Detention Centre, the big finding was that all the women and children should be removed from the Centre. I don't disagree with this finding however I'd like to see the evidence that demonstrates that men are better able to cope with multiple years in detention than women and children. Alternatively, show me the evidence that men are less important to a child's upbringing than women - a view commonly adopted by the divorce courts.

The only issue affecting men that I can think off which seems to get sympathy from the media is suicide. This is presumably because men tend to be more successful than women when it comes to killing themselves and hence show up more prominently in the statistics.

Bev:

25 Sep 2015 3:59:02pm

Even that is now being slanted. Though teenage boys suicide at 5 times the rate of girls there are organizations which look at both but an increasing number which only look at girls. Increasingly funding is going towards suicide prevention for girls. If things keep going the way they are I would expect like male DV victims boys suicides will drop off the radar.

mike j:

Do a meta analysis of suicide articles in the media and you will find that most articles are about pretty young girls, and not the young men who constitute the majority of victims.

The media is simply playing to its audience. White knights jump at the chance to showcase their macho credentials, downplaying male suffering while exaggerating female frailty, while women seem to either be titillated by female victimhood, or play up the female victim meme to maximise their own benefits and entitlement.

Our Government, which is supposed to cut through these social prejudices and implement policy which benefits all citizens, instead kowtows to the vocal pseudofeminist outrage industry.

Mena Reno:

25 Sep 2015 8:33:59am

Ok, so it's not even being obfuscated any more. When these DV 'specialists' used to spin the yarn as "family violence", there was at least an ounce of plausible deniability that they were including violence against anyone in the family. $100M later and there's no need to continue their charade. It is what it is, as it has always been, solely converned with the politicisation of violence against women and its use as a lever to advance a much more sinister and selfish feminist agenda. Meanwhile, violence against other family members, particularly that perpetrated by women, or against men, is treated as business as usual. Isn't that the definitiom of systemic gendered violence, when it's business as usual?

Other violence, which is far more common and twice as harmful to society, particularly violence by women against children, and the increasing levels of random hostility and reckless disregard for social propriety even by the average woman on the streets gets minimal airplay by the ABC's feminist coven, making the readership believe women are being attacked whenever the wind blows. This increasingly well-funded culture of victimisation is weakening tje Weat's ability to withstand the coming darkness in our society. It should soon become clear that what feminism has become and Sharia Law are made for each other.

Gender apartheid is marching into our country while we're busy renovating our homes and preening ourselves over selling our country to the lowest common denominator.

pH:

Curious party:

25 Sep 2015 11:57:31am

You do your argument no favours by being so hyperbolic about it. I agree that we need to acknowledge ALL domestic violence and not focus just on the violence perpetrated by men on women. But, because of the language you use, your argument will likely be interpreted as a crazy MRA nut rather than actually examined for anything worthwhile.

Mena Reno:

25 Sep 2015 6:05:00pm

Not sure what an "MRA nut" is, but it seems derogatory. Not nice. It's also a little odd to presume the consequences of runaway rhetoric and hysteria can be adequately arrested with dialectic. By all means use dialectic from here on in, but a thank you for opening the window would be nice.

Ginger Theredheeler:

Whilst I agree it is important to recognize and offer treatment for men as victims and women as perpetrators of DV can we please not turn every single discussion on DV into 'but what about the men'?

Two women are being killed every week in Australia by their current or former partners. As a country we need to do something to stop this.

When there was a huge outcry against one-punch deaths in nightclub districts which led to zero-tolerance by police and courts, did you call this a "culture of victimization" or was this public outcry not a "selfish masculinist agenda" by a "masculinist coven" because men are the main victims of night-club violence?

There are those who would like to see the gender apartheid of status quo remain in our country but it is not those who would like to see violence against the women we 'love' taken as seriously as violence against men we have never met before outside a nightclub.

Michael:

25 Sep 2015 12:16:36pm

"Two women are being killed every week in Australia by their current or former partners. As a country we need to do something to stop this. "Whilst I agree that you need to keep focus on specific topics I believe you need to challenge mis-information.

Two women are being killed by violence each week.NOTwo women are being killed every week by their current or former partners.

The Counting dead women stats are of all women who have been killed by violence.

Ginger Theredheeler:

25 Sep 2015 1:28:34pm

Except that I didn't say we shouldn't include men, Mike. I specifically said that we should include men and that all victims are equally important. There is certainly a cult of victimhood around this topic, but it doesn't come from the women.

Mena Reno:

Mena Reno:

25 Sep 2015 2:20:45pm

Ginger, your view is terribly myopic. When $100M in taxpayer funds are used for Turnbull's (or his cynical publicist's) equally myopic view of violence, it is every citizen's problem, and duty, to criticise it. That you would call this a hijacking of "an issue that affects women" is to presume the myopia doesn't exist and that your own personal view of the issue is not just the only right one but the only fully informed one. The truth is that your view is neither.

When the majority of Turnbull's $100M DV pledge is invested in treating violence against men, and violence against boys by their mothers, which are far and away the primary causative agents of violence against women by men, then your view might hold some water. The reality is that the average man is no more able to handle violence than the average woman, yet he is still expected to absorb violence, to put himself in the firing line, to be the disposable blood-soaked sponge, without complaint. If he objects, some ignorant fool is always available to shame, mock or ridicule him or call him a whiner or a comment hijacker.

When the life expectancy of men is equalised with that of women, instead of being 5-7 years lower, then perhaps Turnbull's $100M will be worth spending on woman-primary campaigns, but until then, programs that comprehensively address systemic violence against men are central to resolving any perceived family violence problem.

Sadly, the DV Industry these days looks more like a highly organised political lobby group whose prime directive is to manipulate the narrative and leverage outrage about violence against women for financial and political gain. Given the remarkable speed with which society responds to a woman in distress, and the huge amounts of public money already given to the DV Industry, one wonders why the problem only seems to get worse.

The natural tendency of society to rush to women's defence is largely responsible for this: the tendency to believe women never lie about or provoke or initiate violence; that women commit the majority of violent abuses of boys; are perpetually incapable of, or without the means, intelligence, agency or capability to defend against or remove themselves from or diffuse potentially violent situations. Train society and government to be more critical of the DV Industry and its claims, then the money might be better spent.

That of course, will do nothing to stop the deeper, more sinister feminist agenda. Even Susan B Anthony's original claims that feminism is about "men's rights and nothing more, women's rights and nothing less", is seen as outdated and tame. The narrative has now morphed into claims that women have the right to do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want, without limit, resistance, accountability or censure. That's the bigger problem, the one we are leaving our children to deal with by attempting to shut down dis

Freddie Frog:

25 Sep 2015 2:53:09pm

"When there was a huge outcry against one-punch deaths in nightclub districts which led to zero-tolerance by police and courts, did you call this a "culture of victimization" or was this public outcry not a "selfish masculinist agenda" by a "masculinist coven" because men are the main victims of night-club violence?"

I don't think you'll find that it was men complaining about the spate of one punch deaths, it was wowsers, authoritarians and nanny staters who want to stop people from drinking alcohol completely. The reaction was way over the top and resulted in a massive reduction in freedom of movement for people who want to go out to venues at night. It was limiting the freedoms of people so they didn't become victims of violence.

Perhaps we should deal with DV the same way, people will not be allowed to enter a relationship with another person without first applying to government for a "relationship" licence. Any charge of violence against you and your relationship licence is revoked and you're banned from being in a domestic relationship with anyone else for a number of years. Whadda ya think?

Jay Somasundaram:

25 Sep 2015 8:39:41am

I suspect that we need to step away from the feminist agenda and look for source issues. I'd argue that society's role is to protect the children first and foremost. It is when children are born that the biggest damages start occurring. The first step is to ensure that children are not born into dysfunctional relationships.

One tactic may be compulsory school education. Another may be requiring a license - we require one for driving a car.

helene:

25 Sep 2015 10:57:36am

Give me a spell. If we have a licence system for relationships, who gets to be the examiners? Members of couples with a proven non-violent record of 20 years together? Qualified psychologists? Justices of the Peace?

We already have government regulation of personal behaviour - it is called the law of the land. It doesn't stop people from hurting each other.

Wildfire2013:

25 Sep 2015 2:18:02pm

Fair enough but how many relationships get entered into without any serious discussion about what is and isn't acceptable behaviour at the outset. I know it's not romantic but there's nothing wrong in setting out what's ok and what's not, what the expectations are and what should happen if they're not met. It needs to be discussed and negotiated in my opinion. It's not sexy, it's not romantic but it's a damn good discussion to have with a prospective partner at some point in the developing relationship. Sure it won't stop someone with psychopathic tendencies but it might cut out those ones that think they can get away with their behaviour because their partner doesn't know what the indicators are or thinks they'll just tolerate it. Get it sorted and straight in both heads right from the get go...might save some trouble.

Jay Somasundaram:

25 Sep 2015 11:27:35am

Most cultures require some sort of license , typically issued and controlled by a priest. You ask important questions, and I don't claim to have answers for them, let alone fool-proof ones. Driver licenses are not fool-proof, and have virtually the same disadvantages, but society acknowledges that the benefits outweigh the harm.

But my real point is that domestic violence without children is quite easy to solve - it is when children come into the equation that the real mess starts. That is the point in time we need to focus on, study and resolve. Prevention is more cost-effective than cure - and we aren't funding cures - just harm reduction.

dogeatdog:

Actually Conway I believe that China (at least until recently) regulated a one child per family rule - although I don't know if parents actually had to obtain a licence to have their baby?

Although the Chinese system was to limit population growth rather than to ensure parents were 'qualified' to raise a child, it is - I suggest - a precedent although as I said in my response to Jay, its not a precedent we should follow.

conway:

25 Sep 2015 3:03:51pm

I believe in China you got a fine for having more than one child and it did not apply in the countryside. As I understand it, this policy has led to unintended consequences (as most top-down policies do).

themongrel:

25 Sep 2015 8:39:57am

A beginning, but if the program is gender specific, ie aimed solely at abused women, then 50% of victims, men and the elderly, are ignored yet again. I would suggest that any program that only deals with half of the problem, based purely on gender, is sexist and discriminatory, no matter how well intentioned. ALL victims need support, regardless of sex, its time to remove heads out of the sand, and stop having this issue dominated by the tittie factor, (not my term, one I heard used by a Barrister to describe the bias of the Family Court).

Curious party:

25 Sep 2015 12:02:46pm

Domestic violence doesn't just mean assault Lexx. Domestic violence has been broadened to include all forms of abuse, including emotional, social and financial abuse. If we were able to have accurate figures for these forms of abuse then it wouldn't surprise me if they showed more 'equality' when it comes to the gender of the abuser.

But, the people who are affected the most dangerously do tend to be women because physical abuse is more dangerous than the others (although the others can lead to physical abuse as well).

Ted:

25 Sep 2015 12:28:11pm

"But, the people who are affected the most dangerously do tend to be women " 1 female death every 7 days verses 1 male every 10 days and then there is the high number of resulting male suicides. Hmmm women are not affected the most dangerously.

Bev:

Bev:

25 Sep 2015 12:35:31pm

It is hard to get a handle on how much DV is physical and how much is not. The most common figure is 25% to 30% is physical. It is known that the extreme cases the media reports are a very small percentage of the total perhaps 2%. Media reporting by only looking at the extreme cases and ignoring the rest gives a very slanted view of what most DV entails.

Lexx:

25 Sep 2015 12:55:26pm

It is a complex issue, to be sure.

I'm not generally one for "reverse sexism" (for want of a better expression), for example I don't believe in quotas on boards or in parliament. I know from experience that there's a lot of abuse of the family law system by lawyers acting for women.

Nonetheless I find *physical* violence by men against women to be a more serious issue than the reverse, if only by virtue of the usual difference in relative strength.

I don't doubt that the non-physical components are much more closely matched in terms of gender distribution. I wouldn't really class them as violence though, although I note that I may be in the minority there.

Bev:

Patricia:

25 Sep 2015 9:04:44am

How right you are. Education needs to start in the home and from the moment children are born with their parents as role models for respectful and loving relationships. This will be the hardest part but if we don't get it right then we are doomed to failure and the cycle will start all over again.

Helvi :

25 Sep 2015 9:22:35am

Agree Patricia, it has to start at home, but then again all kinds of people have children, so it's going to be hard. Also heavy drinking and drug use, ice, doesn't help here. Unemployment, idleness, high mortgages make many men desperate ,angry and yes, violent.

comeon:

25 Sep 2015 12:46:12pm

and women are violent too Helvi, I had a partner that used to drink to excess every so often, due to a serious injury that incapacitated me she would get drunk and then start to get violent towards me, opening up stitches on one occasion but being male I never reported it, it was not at all what she was like normally when sober, two different people, I eventually walked out on her. I Have seen the same thing in a lot of cases, women are just as capable as men and they are also more than capable of taking it out on the kids. What needs to be done is making it domestic violence including all, ie, women, men and kids as they are all involved and can all be instigators. Verbal abuse is also part of this and that is something many women tend to do.

phil:

women are sugar and spice, and everything nice. They wouldn't be violent, or abusive, or cruel.

Our our PM mentioned, its the 'womens safety package to stop the violence', not the 'national safety package to stop the violence'.

Our PM only went further, and said the DV starts with disrespecting women. To even suggest that women do not deserve 100% of the money is to disrespect all the women who have been abused in the past. So your part of the problem against women.

Tafari:

The policy is a fashion statement to put shine on the new PM and show he is close to the heart beat of popular causes. Men are already wedded to the Party so they are not included.

That is not to say that the various beneficiaries won't do occasional and individual good with the money but general change requires something more fundamental in the nature of society. I believe that violence in relationships is on the general decline, like violence in every other area of OECD societies , and it will simply take time.

So whatever superficial work can be done is good.

Given that this is politically driven then if men want to share in the spoils by being recognized they need to start their own societies and lobby groups. If they make a dent in the zeitgeist then cash and support will follow.

themongrel:

25 Sep 2015 9:42:07am

Not in my experience lexx. As an ex Cop with hundreds of hours attending domestics (and you can't get more frontline than that), my personal experience is that about 50% victims are women, about 40% men, around 10% elderly relative. Widows would dominate the elderly relative group, with the main abuser being the daughter-in-law. I guess that would increase the female victims to somewhere over 50%, men over 40% if you exclude the elderly as a separate group. Oddly enough, my personal experiences seem to run fairly close to the figures from the UK and Canada, as well as here. Time this issue was recognised for what it really is, a universal problem for both sexes, not just a female one.

Jack:

25 Sep 2015 10:26:49am

Sounds about right . I think that feminists and female bureaucrats are really claiming that all wonen are somehow "victims" as a way of gaining power and trying to work their way up the economic and employment status ladder.As opposed to earning their position.

PM Turnbull is out for good publicity and to swing women firmly behind his support base.He has jusy created another layer of bureaucracy with our $100 million borrowed debt for the taxpayers of the future to bear.Things wont change.

Better to tighten disipline in eduction and socirty in general.

Some men will abuse women because they are drunks on drugs or have no self control. Some women will wind men up habitualy or abuse them as well.

For the yonger generation it would be hard to respect some of the foul mouthed, agressive rude, tatooed types of females that are common these days.I find them offensive.

Personally, I can't belive the degeneration in society over the past 20 years or so.There is a lack of disipline in society that has not been seen before and education standards are ovbiously slipping.

Women receive respect when the are feminine , show manners, are caring and are generally a cut above the male of the species.

No real man would harm a woman or a child. However respect is not a given automatically it must be earned.

FrederickBloggs:

Curious party:

25 Sep 2015 12:05:43pm

Yes, the problem is that those who are more violent in general are also likely to be more violent at home (and the reverse is true also). If we stopped tacitly/actively accepting violence in certain spheres of our lives then it would reduce the violence in those spheres in which we all agree that it is unacceptable.

Heather:

25 Sep 2015 9:58:34am

How can we afford to keep funding all these (albeit worthy causes). Many more in need.

Women must take some responsibility. Many violent partners show this behaviour within the first 3 months of dating. Can women be stronger and say ..no not for me and get out...certainly before they have children. Don't think it is your fault. Be independent get a good education and keep updating, buy your own home. Being in a relationship with children is not the be all and end all.

Teach finance at school, what domestic violence is and how to cope and report. Don't be a victim in the first place.

Are the offences due to Ice et al or alcohol ?

Do different cultures understand domestic violence not tolerated here as it is overseas.

Grant:

25 Sep 2015 9:58:37am

All men should face severe punishment if found to be verbally or physically abusing women. It needs to be equal to more severe crimes. Women shouldn't have to deal with all this. In the workplace and at home all they face is abuse and discrimination. A department and law enforcement agency should be set up just for women to tackle this issue. Now there will be those who will question what the cost would be of such actions. The answer should always be that money is no object

Mena Reno:

25 Sep 2015 10:23:42am

Perhaps we should just jail anyone who disagrees with a woman. A man might say "no madam, you may not assault me with your poisonous tongue", and boom! He goes to jail. I can hear the feminists cooing with delight. I also see the degenerative ratchet turn another notch.

pH:

25 Sep 2015 10:42:23am

Careful what you wish for Grant, if implemented properly you would be imprisoning a lot of women. And prison isn't the most nonviolent place, even for women sometimes who are effectively sent to boarding schools.

Bev:

25 Sep 2015 4:22:39pm

The Plan was the outcome of a conference in Canberra in 2009. In that plan means were discussed to reduce the number of women arrested for DV (it was climbing). The most successful one is the Primary aggressor evaluation. Almost any man regardless of circumstance will be found to be the aggressor using this evaluation just by the way it is applied. This plan forms the basis of all actions by state and federal governments in combating DV. Some parts of the pan are/have been implemented in changed legislation and DV protocols. Having read the lengthy document I would say if fully implemented there will be the wholesale removal of men's rights in regard of DV and any man (guilty or innocent) will be fair game for any sort of accusation with little right of protection or reply.

saline:

There needs to be more focus on the situation which builds and allows violence to become the issue.

Both men and women have the capacity to kill. But what is it in a relationship that builds this fire.

I do have a thought.

Women have the chance to become independent, but some never manage to do so, and I think it is these women who are often seen to be failures who are most likely to suffer. Men feel they have married a failure, other women contribute to the household, help out, if you will.

This is only one problem I have noticed.

I also agree with the suggestion that women are sometimes the perpetrators of the violence. I don't think one gender owns violence.

Support for women and children in danger is an excellent move. But 'in depth' studies are required in the longer term. Not suggesting a cause, but I believe there is more to the issue and some lives can be improved.

Government grants should be made available to a limited number of universities to establish research units to report on the issue over ten or more years.

pH:

Unfortunately we can't ever hope to mitigate the issue that is domestic violence while we as a society continue to look at it through ideological and emotional eyes.

We are going to have to accept that this is not a gendered issue and take an equal look at female offenders and male victims.

Relationships are complicated and very few start out violent, often there are months or years of complex interactions that lead to either party becoming violent. Like it or not, often the major factor is continued emotional abuse and passive aggressiveness, largely committed by women. Nothing in this scenario is justified, its simply a case of cause and effect. You cannot take a complex issue and arbitrarily draw the line at a place where your emotions become most triggered, you must look at the whole picture unabashedly (no pun intended).

Effectively violence is a symptom of a problem/s and not the problem itself. The problem with trying to treat symptoms is that you cannot until they appear.

So lets take a logical and emotionless look at domestic violence and treat the cause to prevent the symptoms.

A realist:

25 Sep 2015 12:30:29pm

"But let's talk about a one man's feelings that one women manipulated him."

Well, your bias and lack of appreciation of the totality of the problem comes through in your portrayal of it being *one* man's feelings and *one* woman who did it. It's far more than one, m'dear. There is some serious psychological scheming and emotional violence being perpetrated in homes by women on men. If men are consistently manipulated by women, they tend to get very angry when they wake up to that fact. So, I'm saying, like pH, that there is more than one contributor to violence.

Now, how about not meddling in the debate yourself?

"ABC - How come you are publishing so many off topic comments? Surely you can moderate those that don't specifically address the author's article."

What I'm saying is a very important comment in itself that needs to be spoken about a lot more. And I'm not going to be put off my your "you-will-stick-to-the-prescribed-line" argument. How about opening your eyes to the totality of the issue?

Curious party:

25 Sep 2015 12:50:11pm

A realist:

Please try to maintain balance in your comments - all people in relationships manipulate their partners. It is part of the human condition to seek to have our needs met. Men are capable of being just as manipulative and psychologically abusive as women. And yes, psychological abuse (bidirectional) is something that routinely gets ignored in discussion of DV and it should be recognised more.

comeon:

25 Sep 2015 12:54:10pm

you do realize that women are more than likely the ones to commit violence on kids and the elderly dont you or do you simply think women are the only victims and all innocent. Women are just as capable of violence as men, there is only a 10% gap between them in cases of violence and that is knowing many men refuse to report it. Any program must be gender neutral if it is to be fair, we need to remove any feminists that set these things up as they use their own bias to do so, we need to treat all as equals.

Ted:

Helene:

25 Sep 2015 2:03:29pm

The whole "real men don't hit women" trope is troubling and wrong-headed.

There's an implication in it that it is OK for a "real man" to hit a male person, but that he somehow oversteps the boundaries of "real maleness" if he hits a female one. Similarly, the "one punch" advocates tell us that it is cowardly to hit someone from behind - the implication being that it is quite OK to strike someone as long as they see you coming.

It is not OK for people (whether they be real men or not) to assault each other at all. It is time we dispensed with the idea that there is some sort of hierarchy of violence, with some sorts of violence being considered honourable, and some not.

Bev:

Curious party:

25 Sep 2015 12:11:28pm

"Effectively violence is a symptom of a problem/s and not the problem itself. The problem with trying to treat symptoms is that you cannot until they appear."

Absolutely this. All relationships are going to be stressful, and there are going to be times when we are in conflict with our partners. The key to a healthy relationship is how we manage those conflicts. Violence indicates that one or both partners do not have good ways of dealing with those conflicts. I would suggest that a lot of violent reactions from men are due to their own passive-aggression - their failure to deal with dissatisfaction calmly and in a head-on manner, instead bottling up their dissatisfaction until they can't hold it any longer and they get angry.

Wildfire2013:

25 Sep 2015 3:28:53pm

That's part of the story Curious Party but what of the partner who is controlling or emotionally manipulative, perhaps financially a bit 'tricky', are they abusers or just not self aware? How do you discuss this with someone who may not know they are like that or are in denial or are just abusive? Which one are they? How will they react if you bring these up?

In many case studies I've read it interesting to see what behaviours were going on in the relationship, why some of these behaviours were not seen for what they were and why the relationship kept going. But I can understand why they persisted, we want our relationships to work and we tend to see them through rose coloured glasses until it gets real bad and then you realise your already in an abusive relationship.

Personally I would love to sit down with a prospective partner and look at the domestic violence reports together, look at the case studies and discuss them, I think it would be good to have that discussion and lay some good foundations for a relationship as early as it could possibly be done.

themongrel:

25 Sep 2015 11:31:51am

Well said pH, making this issue gender specific will not solve the problem, only about half. I think also that we should do away with this concept of " don't blame the victim". Sometimes it has been the behaviour of the victim, either male or female, that has triggered the incident. Adults should be capable and be prepared to accept responsibility for their own behaviour, not try to place some or all of the blame on others. Resolution of an issue requires all parties to understand their role and input into its creation.

Safer Communities:

Are sanitary napkins gender specific? Should we ban all ads and discussion on tampons, sanitary pads because they fail to include men?

Get a grip people. Women and children are being murdered. Let's talk about them, their pain and suffering, stop talking about whether other people are victims.

To all those that keep thinking male victims are the real majority and they are not receiving help I say : SET UP A SAFE HOUSE FOR MEN!!!! If you truly believe it is a life and death issue do something about it.

I do believe that some young males need safe houses, particularly in Aboriginal communities. But that doesn't mean women are not the majority of victims or the most likely to be killed by a partner or ex partner.

Advocate for change and stop hijacking issues effecting women. THAT is disrespectful.

comeon:

25 Sep 2015 1:00:45pm

and your own personal bias and sexist attitude is on full view for all to see. To be honest it is people like you that refuse to accept that women are exactly the same as men and can do exactly the same things that are the problem. You need to open your eyes and start reading about the men that are killed as well as the kids and elderly by women as it does happen. The bias of womens groups etc to refuse to accept that women are just as likely to be violent in some cases is extremely prevelent, used to be that mens issues were never raised/reported but now that they are it shows women being just as violent in many cases towards them and in the case of kids and the elderly they can be an even bigger percentage of the instigators.

Michael:

25 Sep 2015 3:48:50pm

False comparison.

By your reasoning there should be no funding for female suicide as men make up the majority of victims (5:1)There should be no funding for female heat attack victims as once again men are the majority (5:4)StrokeRobberyAssault

How about we weigh things on their circumstances not on their sex.

Or how about men from now on, when they call domestic violence support services or the police say they identify as being a woman?

Safer Communities:

25 Sep 2015 11:59:09am

Over the years a pattern has emerged of governments funding one-off competitive grants to services, often for short term projects that have no on-going funding. Specialist services spend significant time and limited staff resources writing funding applications and reporting on grant acquittal at the cost of providing frontline services to women and children in need.

I do support grant acquittals because too many services say they are providing a service and we need to know that services are improving their services to better meet the needs of clients. Having said that I do think it is abhorrent that front line staff are not able to be freed up to help people.

Governments need to fund these essential services like hospitals. Hospitals don't have taps turned on and off at the rate of family violence support services. Look in the Kimberley. They had a safe house shut down that was the only one available for hundreds of kilometres.

If Malcolm is serious he will drop the slogans, forget what is un-Australian and concentrate on what is criminal, a breech of human rights and for goodness sake fund services that meet the diversity of the women asking for help.

Ted:

25 Sep 2015 12:34:06pm

"goodness sake fund services that meet the diversity of the women asking for help" so you don't want equality and wish to pander to specical interest groups that refuse to look at reality or how they are creating the problem with their blinkered views.

Theend:

25 Sep 2015 1:20:27pm

War in the home! War in Iraq! It is time for women & men, boys & girls, granpa & niece, to RESPECT and LOVE ! Omg, when will we learn- it is time for a change of Attitude! From this day on, males will wait until females approach them for prospective relationships. Females will ascertain whether they like the male, make a date, and if satisfied after 6 months, will then offer the male to join them in a relationship. In the next 6 months, the female has the right to cease the relationship if it is not going well. This will avoid potential domestic tension. The male, during the 12 months, must act neutrally in all aspects, until an optimum level of attachment is achieved. All males are under reporting conditions, to present themselves to their local police station each week, to have records updated. If not presenting, it is the female responsibility to take affirmative action. Males will 'dig' all of this, becoming law-abiding and loving within 12 fine months.

truebloo:

25 Sep 2015 2:14:12pm

Geez, all this life experience I have, and now I find that folks are acting inappropriately towards each other. Not happy, Jan.Some crusades, world wars, two atomic bombs, planes flying into towers..etc etc...not happy, Jan.And now mobile phones and CCTV for victims of domestic violence.Where can we download the app for this ?

Steve:

25 Sep 2015 2:59:52pm

This might seem unpopular, but I was curious if we could start in schools. Have 'relationship' classes or something, and one of the elements could be what to do in a violent situation/relationship. Possibly even how to pick up signs that a possible future partner may be aggressive and perhaps violent. Things such as alcoholism, drug habits, inability to compromise/discuss things rationally. Basically the importance of good relationships. Some relationships turn sour and men/women become different and violent without prior warning, but I would imagine there are traits visible in most cases that people could detect and think "I don't think he/she would be a good parent to my child, or a good partner". Is that too simplistic? Maybe, but it might also be a legitimate possibility.

purgatory:

25 Sep 2015 3:32:41pm

Governments should have mandatory fines for any sort of violence, with harsher penalties for DV. The extra monies collected could go towards programs to teach children that violence is not an appropriate response in any situation, except when a persons life is under threat.Violence is a learned response from the 'general' acceptance that violence is a legitimate response. I was taught that it wasn't, not even punching your brother back when he hits you. I have quite often heard from other parents "Well, if he hit you, go and hit him back", rather than the parents taking control.There are too many excuses of 'self-judged provocation'. Alcohol/drug use is another excuse. They may reduce inhibitions, but not everyone gets violent after drinking etc, even when provoked.DV has the added problem of 'woman as dependent on man', based in ideas of work, religion and culture.

Steve:

25 Sep 2015 3:49:55pm

Its not necessarily bad for a woman to be dependent on a man, or someone. Im talking mainly when they might be pregnant or with toddlers. In a perfect world, not being able to work for a short period while with child is only natural that she would rely on someone to 'bring home the bacon'.

GrazzerBear:

25 Sep 2015 4:33:44pm

I think this current media push by the government to do something about domestic violence is a case of throwing good money after bad until they get realistic and start addressing the real causes of the problem. In all the verbiage there is no mention of drug abuse, alcohol abuse and gambling abuse - funny that?They are happy to throw all these tax payers dollars at a problem that in my view stems from the cultural problems we have let fester in our society from drugs, alcohol and gambling.Is it a case of they don`t want to bit the hand of those that feed them - or better still grease their palms?

Jim:

25 Sep 2015 5:58:20pm

Amusing to see all the grabs for money. Its pretty basic, people should treat each other with respect. That starts with good parenting where the child is not the center of the universe in contrast to all the PC nonsense.